Despite record hottest year even a loaded vague climate survey shows 61% don’t agree with experts

After the hottest ever El Nino year with relentless propaganda on Australian media, even a loaded survey finds that only 39% of Australians agree that humans are the major drivers of the climate. The survey is being painted as a success by obedient “journalists”. But this is not skyrocketing support, it’s more likely last gasp noise. The results will be down again next year (with the weather).

It is yet another meaningless motherhood survey that avoids asking real questions, offers unbalanced answers, and uses the same ambiguous language as most of these pointless surveys do. Would you like apple-pie?

Who doesn’t want nicer weather — and for free?

The questions climate fans are too scared to ask

Obviously The Climate Institute don’t want real answers, which they must know would be devastating. They won’t ask how much people want to pay out their own pocket to fix the climate. They won’t ask people to rank “climate change” against all the other issues they care about. They won’t ask people if Climate Change is a scam, a con, or a scheme to make the green industry rich (a year ago a US poll showed 31% were happy to call climate change a “total hoax“). Things don’t get more skeptical than that, but if surveyors don’t ask, they’ll never know.

These surveys never ask if the public thinks windmills will slow storms or make floods less likely. There is a good reason for that…

The ugly truth — for the public it’s not important, and they don’t want to pay

The results are the same all over the western world. Even after a heavy loaded survey lists climate disasters, half of Brits don’t want to pay a cent. When asked almost the same question, (is it mostly human driven?) 56% of Canadians are skeptics. When the Swiss were asked if they should change their VAT to a carbon tax 92% of the Swiss said “No Thanks“. It was sold to them as “paying less tax” overall and saving the world, but almost everyone in Switzerland thought it was a dumb idea. That wasn’t a poll, it was a referendum.

Gullible journalists and poorly trained science communicators

The unequivocal acceptance of loaded weak surveys says a lot about journalistic and academic standards. The Climate Institute is a group whose whole existence depends convincing people that we should be alarmed about the climate. Poor Fergus Hunter of the SMH is supposedly “a breaking news reporter for Fairfax Media in the federal press gallery at Parliament House”. But he swallows the press release entirely, asking no hard questions and doing no research. Likewise The Conversation runs with the agitprop — James Whitmore, Editor at The Conversation does no analysis and provides no balance. Pravda would be proud. In an academic wasteland, Will Grant is paid at the ANU to lecture in the public awareness of science but apparently hasn’t done so much as a 2 second google search on climate surveys, nor has he been taught how to write surveys. Shame, but that’s what government funding gets you. Parrots.

For the mainstream voters, climate issues get hidden so the electorate won’t cane them. The only passion in the electorate is for blood oaths to get rid of carbon taxes.

How loaded are these questions?

“I think that climate change is occurring” — even skeptics like me would say “yes” to this – yet 23% of Australians didn’t agree.

In a landscape of trite questions, 75% of Australians might think that governments in Australia “need to implement a plan to ensure the orderly closure of old coal plants and replace them with clean energy.” But what’s the alternative, that governments shouldn’t plan? Making plans with someone else’s money is a tooth fairy kind of commitment. It’s amazing that a quarter of Australians don’t even think the Government should implement a plan.

And glory be, only 3% of people say “coal is their preferred energy source” but for virtually every Australian 73% of their electricity is created with coal. They are all free to go off-grid and be totally renewable. Almost no one does it. Why not ask Australian’s if they’d like to pay 10c a KWhr for electricity from coal (which wholesales at 3 or 4 c).

126 comments to Despite record hottest year even a loaded vague climate survey shows 61% don’t agree with experts

Who in their right mind would want cheap reliable electricity from coal generation when they can have unreliable expensive renewables ?
Actually me and anyone else that doesn’t live in the inner cities I suppose .

Well, somebody called Barry Gardiner has suddenly decided he wants to outlaw fracking in the UK, because of its effect on the unicorn population. He thinks we should be abandoning fossil fuels altogether and heading, as fast as our solar-powered cars will carry us, for “renewables”.

Gardiner is the Shadow Energy Secretary, meaning that, if Labour were in power, his barking mad notion would be government policy. Mind you, if Labour ever wins power again, the place will look like North Korea and the absence of electricity will hardly be noticed by the fifty-nine million in the Gulag.

“The longest continuous reconstruction of the Earth’s surface climate suggests that current greenhouse gas levels could commit the planet to as much as 7 degrees of warming in the next 1000 years.

The study, Evolution of global temperature over the past 2 million years, was conducted by Stanford University then doctoral student Carolyn Snyder, and marks the longest continuous reconstruction of the Earth’s surface climate to date.

It comes as a national poll found public support for federal government-led action on climate change has bounced back, with increased support for renewable energy production.

The Climate Institute’s Climate of the Nation poll found 65 per cent of Australians want their country to lead the world on climate change solutions, a marked increase since the time of divisive debates about the Gillard government’s carbon tax.

Published in a report for the journal Nature, the study revealed that global temperatures were cooling until around 1.2 million years ago, before stalling until the present.

“This research was in response to a fair amount of great paleo-climate records that had been produced by a variety of researchers over long periods of time, but increasingly people were using different approximations for global temperature,” she said.

“We didn’t have a global temperature record that we could compare, so there seemed to be this gap.”

Previously global average surface temperature has only been reconstructed for isolated periods, like the past 20,000 years.

However Dr Snyder’s research applied a network of more than 20,000 sea surface temperature reconstructions from 59 ocean sediment cores, in order to recreate temperatures at 1,000-year intervals for the past two million years.

“One of the mysteries in the earth’s past, is what the trigger was when the earth went in and out of ice ages and warmer periods like we have today,” she said.

“What we’ve seen in the past is that in cold periods ice sheets expanded and they had an effect on the reflectivity of the earth’s surface that made the earth get colder.”

In contrast, she said, warmer climate states meant “less sea ice, more ocean water and varied ocean dynamics, which would in turn cause changes in the earth’s temperature, because less would be reflected off the earth’s surface”.

“This study is not a forecast or a prediction, but it gives a ballpark context to the relationship between greenhouse gas levels and temperatures in the past … to give as robust a picture that we can of the earth’s dynamic.”

Still laughing…..[Thanks, Posted. h/t to you and Analitik and Colin, David B (via email). - Jo]

Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleo-climate scientist at the Australian National University, at The Conversation has already been able to extrapolate off this new study to state that because of the greater feedback sensitivity revealed by this paper and the fact that CO2 “levels are currently rising at around 3ppm each year, a rate unprecedented in 55 million years“, a

The future of storms
Scientists disagree over whether climate change is altering individual hurricanes and typhoons, but while It is impossible to know whether global warming had an impact on any one storm, researchers do see a trend. (Video courtesy New York Times)

But, but, but – they didn’t say which way the trend was going! Talk about deceptive!

As the Security man standing outside the bank said this morning “it’s been a terrible year, it’s getting hotter, and colder and far too wet”.
Small still voice (mine) “What can we do about it?”
“Pah! Nothing! It’s natural”.

The weather has been strange lately,but not as strange as its gonna get. Followed by demonic laughing. I’ll call them out as brain dead fools.( or tools) Mini-cyclones and tornadoes are to get much much bigger.Its a bit like the Gauls of old who lived in fear that the sky would fall in.

According to the Climate Institute 77% of people think that the climate is changing (I am one) but only 39% of them think that man is to blame. So, ummm, 39% of 77% is – 30% of our population – thinks that we are to blame and should take action, after they have finished their cafe latte and taken their labradoodle around the block, of course.

I’ve just discovered that there is someone out there, in the media, even the ABC, who understands how surveys are rigged.
The bit I like particularly is:
“Surveys do not simply identify a rock-solid public opinion; they explore, with the potential to distort through questions asked. Essential chose not to present respondents with a range of options on Muslim immigration. Rather, it was a yes/no choice:

Would you support or oppose a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia?”

…because they damn well know both intuitively and experientially that it is not the hottest year evah, as they damn well know this mantra translates into one thing, pretending that government edict and dank searching eco-fingers that rip-off their hard earned cash can change the weather.

So, when people talk about ‘climate change‘ first ask them what they’re talking about, how they define it. It’s the perfect arrest for eco-confabulation. If they have the nous to say UN, ask them which of the four UN definitions they’re using.

Maybe it is also because the “experts” are almost never experts in the requisite field of endeavour, and people are not quite as stupid as we would like to sometimes believe?

Sadly I also think it is because it’s now a popular to treat actual experts in any slightly controversial fields with suspicion (or skew the article to make it seem like a controversial subject), while amplifying the noise generated by ignorant regressive activists – all in the name of ‘balance’.

The meeting will also be attended by a representative for Environment Minister Greg Hunt.

The CSIRO had previously cancelled a meeting with Senator Roberts

Malcolm Roberts probably does need any help. However I think it would be better if more people were there (as witnesses), including Greg Hunt in person. Is he still Environment minister? I thought he had been mover on.

And what if 100% said it was completely man-made? Public sentiment has frequently been wrong before. The useful function of a survey like this is to ask- as Jo says- what is the public willing to spend to stop climate chnge?

Even if the problem is real, which it ain’t, who is going to force China, Russia, India, and the US to reduce their emissions to almost zero to avoid the supposed global warming catastrophe? The Greens? I wish they would. That way they would be either locked up or worse depending on the country, and we would be rid of the loonies forever.

As Dr Nikolov has provided a clear and logical explanation for the use of pseudonyms and as the paper passed peer review presumably on account of its scientific merit, it should now be re-published under the author’s real names. It’s a travesty that a scientific study is withdrawn merely because, out of desperation to overcome the hurdle of arguably unjustified public notoriety, the authors chose to publish under easily decipherable pseudonyms. Papers should only be withdrawn from publication if they are demonstrably shown to lack scientific credibility or have serious ethical issues. Neither applies here.

‘The Chinese are one of the largest migrant groups in Australia, comprising around 4 per cent, but their voting preferences have been largely unknown with many underrepresented in major opinion polls because of language barriers.

“A lot of the migrants these days are business migrants and affluent people, so for them they are concerned about business and the economy,” Mr Ngo says.

“Climate change and marriage equality are very important issues to us in the mainstream but what the poll shows is that to migrants that are worried about settling in and getting ahead, that is the least important.”

I seriously doubt which segment of the Chinese population was making up the immigrants would have much effect on the result of a poll like this. Even a Chinese coolie looks for ways to make extra money with deals on the side.

As some who has had to bootstrap into another country for work ( as a quasi immigrant…. ) I can tell you survival and doing well are the only things you really care about….local politics…pah….no time, dont care…..eating…yes….important….

They’re all parasitic organisations – first and last are fighting for donations from the gullible and concerned while the 2nd leeches off the ANU (like the Melbourne Energy Institute at the University of Melbourne and the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney)

The average punters’ feelings about government, tame media and academic push-pollers are like those of Romanians just before the commies fell. We don’t believe any more, we don’t care any more, and we don’t listen any more. We just want ‘em gone. All I want to hear about Turnbull or Baird or Fairfax or the ABC is that they are GONE.

Mr Bolt has waded in on the topic too and The Climate Institute has issued a reply!

Dear Mr Bolt

Thank you for drawing attention to our 2016 Climate of the Nation report, the 39% number you mention is hardly buried – first appearing on page 3 in the executive summary and then later in the report. The seventy seven per cent accepting that it is occurring now is a big jump from the 70% last year and it is interesting that just 9% of that 77% think this is just a natural occurrence. Trust in the science has increased from a minority in 2012 and 2013 to sixty per cent now.

As you will have seen in the report there is also a substantial majority accepting there are economic opportunities in tackling climate change and costs in not doing so.

On just about every indicator there has been growth in support for what might be understood as a conservative notion of risk management on this issue. Indeed just three per cent supported the notion that the federal government should take no action on climate change.

A less partisan approach that manages risks and maximises opportunities in what is now a global transition is strongly preferable and what The Climate Institute is working towards with other mainstream business, investor and community organisations.

There are some people on the board who may have had a brush with science at some point. Graeme Pearman is about as close to a scientist as one could get, if he didn’t have his two front trotters and snout firmly in the “climate science” trough.

I was totally unaware of “The Precautionary Principle”, until the phrase was used in relation to climate change. It seems to me to be a total nonsense. Everybody takes risks, all of the time. We would not go near a road if we firmly abided by “The Precautionary Principle”, because something might fall off a truck and hit us.

So I did some research, and what did I find? The term Precautionary Principle was defined by UNESCO, in relation to, “Scientific uncertainty in environmental management”. Woohoo!

So, because we cannot alter, let alone manage, the environment, we must revert to the Precautionary Principle, and dance round the fire, shaking a string of bones, and muttering curses.

The Climate Institute is no better than shamans and witch doctors.

But Governments better cough up with the money, or they will have the bone pointed at them, and who knows what might happen then?

Who said that there would be so little rain that the dams will never be full? Was it not the Climate Institute spokesman? In their risk management studies have they included the present floods in several states?

Many of the far more important issues require power. Clean affordable power. Transport. Clean water and sanitation requires power. Internet, phones require power.
We are hearing that turning off our abundant power is the right thing to do, to show the world how to live, to set an example? Of what? Self harm? Absurd behaviour?

Or the move to get rid of the people and save the planet, but for whom?

The Green movement is one of the most selfish and utterly ignorant in history. It is beyond parody that South Australia has used vast amounts of public money to build forests of useless windmills. Surely now South Australians has one of the lowest CO2 levels on the planet? No? Then why?

What then is the logic of leading the world in windmill waste and totally unreliable ‘sustainables’. Our Hazelwood was commissioned in 1971 but it is now supposedly obsolete and polluting? 45 years later? What? It is perfectly useful, necessary and clean and produces no pollution? The brown coal reserves are huge. So we will shut it.

In fact we have reversed any sensible logic. Unpredictable windmills now provide the base load and they want fossil fuel generators to fill in the gaps?

I remember sticker on an old battered Land Cruiser 4WD. “The true wilderness is between a Greenie’s ears”

Dennis, its called “Rewilding” and is powered by…drum roll…..Agenda 21.

The idea is to force people out of the countryside, and into mega slum cities where humans can be eaily watched, controlled and easily culled ( high population density and control of water supplies are the U….er….genocidal maniacs best friend….)

The NWO mob want to reduce the planets population to 500 million – yep that figure is correct. They plan on a massive war of west vs east and agenda 21 to mop up whats left….

Interesting that the only age group that didn’t rate CC dead last was the over 45s crowd. I’d guess that was only because they don’t care so much about Internet access and computing things, so Internet access was their last option, CC still 2nd last.

How’s the irony! The warmists are always telling us “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” but even the children don’t give a flying fig about fighting climate change – that’s the U.N.’s own data!

As one of those who remain to be even slightly aware that any climate changes at all are occurring (I hate the singular in a country as big as Australia, from Hobart to Darwin, Perth to Cairns), I wonder how anyone can tell in this land of ‘droughts and flooding rains’. That is the climate.

Not only is accurate and widespread measurement of temperature new to Australia along with Europeans with their records, it is newest to the whole Southern half of the planet. So what do we know of the long term cycles? The fact that La Nina and El Nino are not predictable at all, the biggest and longest and most obvious climate phenomena in the entire Pacific, shows that whatever weather models people are using, they are a long way from even competent let alone complete. We do know a lot about the Federation drought, the data for which became the property of the newly formed BOM in 1909 but which is still in cupboards somewhere, locked up so they can say this is the hottest, driest ever.

Now we will soon hear from the Climate Council/Climate Institute/Climate Opportunists that the flooding rains are more proof of Climate Change. No. That is the climate.

It is obvious that Climates can Change but Climates by their very definition are not things which can be measured over a decade or two in a largely arid landscape. It is good debating tactic to concede Climates Change. However if anyone has any real evidence of serious man made climate change anywhere in Australia, it would be interesting to see it. If 350 full time CSIRO scientists could not find clear evidence in a decade, what hope the casual observer? Even they warned of the danger of confusing long term weather cycles with the climate.

As is also true, the total increase in the human population in the last few decades generates more CO2 per year than the whole of Australia’s output, just by breathing out.
No one suggests we ask these people not to exist or to move more slowly. No, we Australians generously and so intelligently cripple our manufacturing, transport, farming, mining and travel and turn off our electricity plants just to show the world we care. About what?

Of course compounding this problem is the fact that only the adjusted version of the true temperature records are being used.

The unadjusted temperature record is data, the adjusted figures are just statistical products derive from that real data.

If anyone calls these data products the temperature records or temperature data they are plain, flat-out, WRONG!
The adjust figures can at best be referred to derived products from statistical manipulation — they can never be called the temperature record!

In true science real data records are the recording of observed measurements. Not the products of adjusted records.

What makes it worse is this data product is used to “calibrate” simulations that are based upon the premise that CAGC is real. Then the output of the simulations are compared to the data product and it “magically” matches. Yet, when this miraculous match is projected into the future, it fails to match the future result. Which, in turn requires more manipulation of the data product from the past which is used to recalibrate the simulations. The cycle is endlessly repeated.

This kind of process is not good enough to be called a pseudo science let alone an actual science. Yet, the politicians use the so called results to drive to a global government with unlimited powers and without accountability to the people governed.

It is a drive to return to the days of absolute monarchs but without the sham cover of divine right. They presume the unbounded right to rule simply because they assert they have a right to rule. We, the ruled, are to have no say in the matter even to the point of asking questions is to be prohibited.

We, the makers, have been too busy making to notice that the takers and destroyers have taken over and corrupted every institution that were put in place to assure our individual liberty. In that respect, the current situation is our fault. We allowed it to happen. Hence, it is up to us to stop it.

Please notice that any power the takers and destroyers have is the power we have, by choice or by default, given to them. Hence, we have the power to no longer give it. If we say “no more” and make it stick, their entire edifice of power, authority, and corruption will collapse about them.

We don’t need them but they desperately need us. Their only hope was that we would not learn how dependent upon us they are. Without our making, they have nothing to take.

The other point to note is that their statistically adjusted product is not scientifically useful.
The adjustments are made on assumption is that the past was colder than the last 10-15 years. How do they come to this startling conclusion — because that is what the models say!

They have designed a pure unscientific digital monster which continually references its own modeled outcome. A digital self-fulfilling prophecy machine.

If that is untrue by all means prove it so by allowing the public see all the methods by which the adjustments are made and all the data showing where and how the equipment and/or the interpretations of the measurements are wrong. Go ahead mendacious poltroons at Western government climate and weather agencies, publish the methods and the data-sets proving it is valid thing to do.
Because we all can see the lunacy of the method.
For instance a previous very high temperature in say 1934, when the locality was mostly countryside is adjusted to be cooler, as today it is an urban over-spill area by a freeway.

Cooling the past make no sense it is moronic! I does nothing but destroy credibility in the scientific process.

I for one know they can’t show how and why they do it as this would reveal too much about this huge sham.

If asked how much money I would be prepared to pay to the government to stop climate change my answer would be not a single penny. You would have to be some kind of Cnut to think that the government can control the climate. Regarding the man made part of the issue. The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. If industrial activity is currently the primary cause, what was causing it before? Regarding experts. At the present moment in time, you can only be an expert on climate change if you agree with the government mandated consensus. Anyone, no matter how well qualified, who disagrees, even on small details, is by definition a denier and cannot be considered an expert.

“Rising greenhouse gases have boosted rainfall in the Sahel region of Africa, easing droughts that killed 100,000 people
in the 1970s and 1980s, in a rare positive effect of climate change, a study said on Monday.

“Amounts of rainfall have recovered substantially,” said Rowan Sutton, a professor at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at Britain’s Reading University and co-author of the study in the journal Nature Climate Change.

“And it was a surprise that the increase in greenhouse gases appears to have been the dominant factor,” he told Reuters.
Sahel summer rainfall was 0.3 mm (0.01 inch) a day higher from 1996-2011 than the drought period of 1964-93.”

The NH has warmed by about 0.7 degrees south of the Arctic Circle
and 0.9 degrees north of the Arctic Circle.

The Southern Hemisphere has warmed a mere 0.28 degrees C north of Antarctica.
The Southern Hemisphere temperatures are about 2 degrees C (or slightly more) on average lower than the Northern Hemoisphere’s for similar latitudes.

So it’s Northern Hemisphere Warming, not Global.

Yet the SH atmospheric CO2 content is still the same as the Northern Hemispheres. So it can’t be CO2.

(The IPCC in AR5 say mankind’s CO2 emissions are 3.75% of total global CO2 emissions. At that rate, it’s going to take a long time to double the atmospheric CO2 content from the current 0.04% to 0.08%, which will warm the “planet” by at least 1.2 degrees C. It still hasn’t doubled since the 0.035 % of the second half of the 19th Century.

Like the CFMEU implant in Japan this week riding on a suburban train talking about a future Victoria train management system that will revolutionarise train travel …. might be ready in a decade or two.

whilst it is true that Labor managed to form government in South Australia after the last election, I think technically, they received less than half the vote, and I know they are continuing to adjust electoral boundaries – which, perhaps unsurprisingly, seem to benefit Labor.

I’m just waiting for ministers to start openly appointing their own relatives to positions of authority, and as their successors, and the Premier to start renaming streets after himself, with a large golden statue to be built in his honour.

In 2015 the Australian had this to say about her and her husband, The communications director of the Climate Institute — one of the fiercest critics of the government’s Direct Action policy — is among the biggest winners from yesterday’s Emissions Reduction Fund auction.

Kristina Stefanova is part-owner of Terra Carbon, which secured a 43 per cent share of the fund by promising to help NSW farmers profit by preserving about 400,000 hectares of farmland.

Terra Carbon is headed by environmentalists Lewis Tyndall and James Schulz, the husband of Ms Stefanaova. Ms Stefanova, who holds a 25 per cent stake in Terra Carbon, has publicly criticised the government’s climate action policies.

It was warm mostly because of El Nino and soon it will get cooler for a variety of reasons, but partly because CO2 doesn’t warm damp air and low cloud cover is set to increase in the decade ahead. The active sun of late last century went on the blink around 2003 and now we are waiting to see what happens next.

Its too late to concern ourselves with the UHI and adjustments etc, the authorities think we are mad.

The only thing to turn public opinion around is weather out of sync with the seasons and we need a credible polling outfit to inform us what the majority really think about climate change.

. . we need a credible polling outfit to inform us what the majority really think about climate change.

But what if no polling were done at all?
Obviously there would be no opinion known at all.
I mean . . if someone asked me, as an atheist, how God has improved the lives of millions over the last century, I’d put a tick in one of the boxes.
. . . but it doesn’t reflect my position.

WOKE U TO THIS! Fran tries so hard to sound like she is a climate expert! truly unbelievable:

AUDIO: 27 Sept: ABC Breakfast: Long term climate heading into territory ‘unknown’ by humans: (Will) Steffen
Scientists have created the longest continuous reconstruction of the Earth’s surface climate stretching back two million years.
Their analysis predicts that current greenhouse gas levels could commit the planet to extreme rises of temperature over the long term.
The research, published overnight in the journal Nature, suggests warming of between three to seven degrees Celsius may already be ‘locked in’ over coming millennia.
The paper is called Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years and was conducted by Stanford University researchers in the US.
Will Steffen from the Australian National University says short term transient temperature is increasing 170 times faster than background levels.
Professor Steffen says rising carbon emissions are likely to lock in hundreds of thousands of years of climate change ‘nothing like humans have known in the past’.http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/long-term-climate-heading-into-territory/7879672

Abrupt freezing events, known as “stadials”, follow peak temperatures in the historical record. These are thought to be related to the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Current. We’re already seeing marked cooling of ocean regions south of Greenland, which may herald collapse of the North Atlantic Current.

and

Unless humanity develops methods for drawing down atmospheric CO2 on a scale required to cool the Earth to below 1.5C above pre-industrial temperature, at the current rate of CO2 increase of 3ppm per year we are entering dangerous uncharted climate territory.

Thanks Bulldust,
Your link includes:
“Over the past 800,000 years, and particularly during glacial cycles, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperature were closely linked.”
I actually agree with those words, taking them to mean that CO2 concentrations increase as temperature increases, but delivered in an obuscatory way to imply the opposite.
They must have got good marks in their propaganda training.
Cheers,
Dave B

27 Sept: NYT: Anand Giridharadas: Besieged Globalists Ponder What Went Wrong
Almost by definition, nationalists and localists are underrepresented at these global gatherings. Their paucity was especially notable this time, because the rising signs of nationalism — whether in the form of Donald J. Trump’s winning the Republican nomination, the British vote to leave the European Union, or the German backlash against Angela Merkel’s welcome to refugees — hovered like a specter over many of the discussions…

***The globalists have lofty aims, of course, like working toward a climate-change agreement…

26 Sept: The Hill: Timothy Cama: Top climate skeptic to lead Trump’s EPA transition team
Myron Ebell, director of energy and environment policy at the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, is heading Trump’s EPA transition preparation, E&E Daily reported Monday…
Ebell has argued that the Clean Power Plan is illegal and that the Paris climate change agreement is unconstitutional…
The Republican presidential nominee’s EPA would be responsible for implementing his ambitious agenda of dismantling major pieces of Obama’s climate legacy, like the Clean Power Plan for power plants and the Paris agreement…
***The Trump campaign didn’t respond to requests to confirm E&E’s report. Ebell referred questions to the campaign.http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/297755-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-trumps-epa-transition

Perhaps the survey questions have something to do with a looming cash crisis down at The Climate Institute?

This group of self-styled “principled pragmatists” headed by lawyer, John Connor, unquestioningly promotes the convenient (for them) fiction that just because “climate change is real” we know so much about its causation we can control it, and so on and so forth.

But CI has a bigger problem than climate change right now – $$$$ and presumably survival. “Expiry of significant philanthropic support” presumably means they’ve spent all the money they were given a decade ago.

“The Institute was originally set up for 5 years under funding provided by the Poola Foundation’s Tom Kantor fund. The Institute has now been running for more than a decade, but the expiry of significant philanthropic support means that it now faces key challenges if it is to continue to operate beyond 2017. In December 2015, The Age reported that the organisation was struggling with fundraising, as its core funding ran out. The Institute has been very actively seeking new donors.”

All the surveys and loaded polls in the world by Marxist/Totalitarian ratbags, get rich quick scammers, Professional Pretenders(actors), and MSM Presstitutes, none of these clown, thief and freak shows offer the one convincing argument……Scientific Proof!

In short, are we supposed to destroy our economy and embrace stupidity because of yet another manufactured propaganda piece?

All advocates of this fiasco are candidates for either ‘leg irons’for thievery, or ‘straight jackets’ for lunacy….or both!

Hopefully the Trumpster will defeat the Hitlery ratbag, become US Pres. and begin the process of ending this global climate scam with the ‘tearing up’ of the Paris BS agreement and continue on to undo the damage done by his predecessor, El Presidente O’Bummer!

I thought Hillary stood up surprisingly well. No coughs or wobbles. Same old big government pitch, though, with renewables thrown in. The Donald make a nice counter that all the greenwash should heed – who’s going to pay for all this ($hit)?

Good to hear The Donald call out Climate Change as not a priority, even though he didn’t call it out as fraud. And Hillary didn’t mention Climate Change once!

Since the original post has sprung the moderation filter, let’s try again….
======================

Anyone watch the debate? Some benefit from having the flu, anyway.

I thought Hillary stood up surprisingly well. No coughs or wobbles. Same old big government pitch, though, with renewables thrown in. The Donald make a nice counter that all the greenwash should heed – who’s going to pay for all this ($hit)?

Good to hear The Donald call out Climate Change as not a priority, even though he didn’t call it out as frawd. And Hillary didn’t mention Climate Change once!

The bottom line for the UN’s is that 250 years of greed drove industrialization. And as all communist are taught greed is bad, QED industrialization is bad.

On both counts they are WRONG!

Greed when channeled for a wider social benefit works well and has done for many generations. Most industrialists through the history worked on this basic premise — industry for the improvement of society. And it has been a great success! Industrial nations of the West have no need to feel guilty about their past, needs and necessities of the day were the drivers, and thankfully industrialization prove to be the best mechanism for the relief of poverty.

The UN wishes to trash this model. Installing a regime whereby appointed donors nations (guilty of being early industrial nations) will be crippled by tax and treaty obligations, and recipient nations forever stuck in UN mandated poverty traps of not being able to progress — for progress would involve the implementation of some industrialization.

All the while the UN will be skimming funds from the donor nations while adding costs to the recipients’ project bill.

26 Sept: ClimateChangeNews: Tim Radford: Don’t blame the solar cycle for global warming
New research confirms that increased greenhouse gas levels − rather than solar radiation impacts − are the key factor in global climate change
European scientists have dug deep to dismiss once again the old argument that climate change might be a consequence of solar radiation rather than atmospheric chemistry…
The TOSCA project – which stands for “towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar variability on the Earth’s climate”− is a co-operation involving solar physics, geomagnetism, climate modelling and atmospheric chemistry.
The scientists went for a global approach, with 61 researchers from many disciplines working together to examine as many aspects as possible that might link variations in the sun’s behaviour with variations in climate. And they have summarised the story-so-far in a new report (LINK).
What they identified is solar mechanisms that could alter regional climate, but none that could trigger global warming…http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/26/dont-blame-the-solar-cycle-for-global-warming/
Thanks. Passed on to D. – J

Pat,
Don’t bother looking for “Earth’s climate response to a changing Sun” as it is ‘sold out’. How very convenient…

This other paper cited in your link says –

Dr Dudok de Wit’s team at the International Space Science Institute in Bern, and the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, have been using the datasets identified through the network to describe the Sun’s influence on climate from 1850 up to the present day, as well as a forecast up to the year 2300. The findings will shape the next report prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“By comparing recent measurements with results from new models, the network challenged the long-debated assumption that the Sun’s slight change in radiation could cause the Earth’s climate to change.

They found mechanisms by which solar variation can alter climate variability regionally, but none that would trigger global warming. Looking at time scales longer than a century, the impact of solar variability on climate change is evident, but the effect of greenhouse gases has been proven much more considerable in the short run.

However, there are still many questions behind the Sun-Earth connection, some of which TOSCA helped answer.

By examining the different phenomena defining the solar impact on climate in general, the team showed several subtle phenomena could have a significant impact, often locally. For instance, UV radiation amounts to a mere 7% of solar energy, but its variation produces changes in the stratosphere near the Equator, all the way to the polar regions, which govern climate. This means that winters in Europe would become wetter and milder or, on the contrary, drier and cooler, depending on the Sun’s state.”

Overall it seems that the paper provides what their “paymasters” want to hear!

27 Sept: ClimateChangeNews: Poland threatens EU plan to ratify UN climate deal
As the EU races to ratify the climate treaty before the next UN climate meeting in November, Poland pushes for concessions on coal
By Karl Mathiesen and Ed King
In a letter to the environment ministers of other member states, Poland’s Jan Szyszko said the country expected the EU to recognise its special need to build new coal plants and carry credits from the Kyoto Protocol in order to meet emissions reduction targets.
The move comes at a time when the EU has placed its credibility on the line over the Paris Agreement…
EU environment ministers will meet in an extraordinary session in Brussels on September 30 to make a decision on ratification…

“Poland is a country rich in energy sources and its energy security, based on its own resources, that is hard coal and lignite is the foundation of Poland’s economy and sustainable development. Moreover, Poland faces the need to develop new energy plants, as it has to satisfy the growing demand for electrical power and replace ageing and inefficient power plants,” wrote the minister.
“Poland shall consent to ratify the Paris agreement by the EU, provided that our reduction achievements made so far under the Kyoto Protocol and the specificity of our national energy mix are considered.”…

Using credits accumulated under the Kyoto protocol is an accounting trick rejected by many countries. Australia openly uses them to achieve the perception it is reducing emissions. But Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Britain have cancelled theirs, judging the Kyoto regime to have been too generous.
Other concessions the Polish minister demanded was the ability to count carbon being locked away in its forests and wooden buildings, plus avoided emissions because of its use trees and other biomass for energy…http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/27/poland-threatens-eu-plan-to-ratify-un-climate-deal/

27 Sept: Indian Express: Reuters: China buys record North Korean coal as sanctions ignored: Data
China imported 2.465 million tonnes of coal from North Korea in August, the highest on record, and 61% above what was bought in April, the month sanctions were supposed to take effect…
Tougher measures were imposed by the United Nations in March aimed at starving North Korea of funds for its nuclear and ballistic missile programme. China said at the time it would ban imports of gold and rare earths, as well as coal. While coal imports from North Korea did slip in April to 1.527 million tonnes from March’s 2.345 million, they have been steadily trending higher since then to reach August’s record…
China’s imports of North Korean coal are up 11.7 percent for the first eight months of the year compared to the same period last year, slightly below the 12.4 percent gain for total coal imports. So far, the big winners among coal exporters to China are Mongolia, with a 50.1 percent year-to-date increase and Indonesia at 18 percent…
In fact, China may have been too successful in lowering domestic coal production, last week allowing 74 major miners to increase output of thermal coal, Reuters reported on Sept. 23…
Australian premium hard coking coal has jumped 164 percent to end last week at $206.40 a tonne, providing a bonanza for major miners like BHP Billiton, which together with partner Mitsubishi is the largest exporter of the fuel…http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/china-buys-record-north-korean-coal-as-sanctions-ignored-data-3051190/

27 Sept: ABC: Andrew Kos: ‘Global warming’ challenge against Rinehart coal mine dismissed by Queensland Court of Appeal
The proposed 30-million-tonne Alpha coal mine in central Queensland co-owned by Gina Rinehart has cleared another legal hurdle, with Queensland’s highest court dismissing an appeal from an environmental group…
Coast and Country spokesman Derec Davies said they would consider further legal action.
“Today’s decision is highly disappointing,” he said…
The Alpha mine has been forecast to produce 30 million tonnes of coal per year and create 2,000 long-term jobs during its 30-plus years of operation…http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-27/global-warming-challenge-against-rinehart-coal-mine-dismissed/7880358

27 Sept: WaPo: Chris Mooney: The U.S. is on course to miss its emissions goals, and one reason is methane
Take the U.S. It pledged, as part of the Paris process, to cut its emissions 26-to-28 percent below the level where they were in the year 2005 by the year 2025…
…there have been questions about how achievable this U.S. goal is — and now, a new study (LINK) in Nature Climate Change appears to raise concerns to a new pitch. The paper, by Jeffery Greenblatt and Max Wei of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, does the math on current and proposed future U.S. climate policies and basically finds that it will be difficult (although certainly not impossible) for the country to hit its embraced target, without doing even more than is being contemplated right now…
Greenblatt and Wei first sought to calculate what 2005 emissions actually were, and found that we don’t really know — or at least, not to a high level of precision. They estimate that we emitted between 6.323 and 7.403 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in that year. That’s right: The high end and low end estimate diverge by over a billion tons…
Based on these numbers, Greenblatt and Wei calculate that the U.S. needs to reduce its annual emissions, in 2025, to between 4.553 billion and 5.478 billion tons in order to meet its goal…https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/26/the-u-s-is-on-course-to-miss-its-emissions-goals-and-one-reason-is-methane/?utm_term=.27e33074dd15

the end of fossil fuels? not likely:

2 pages: 26 Sept: Reuters: EUROPE POWER-Curve up at 10-week high on coal, spot power
The European forward power curve rose to its highest levels since mid-July on Monday, driven by firmer coal and strong prompt power prices, which reflected lower than expected wind speeds and thermal plant availability…
Prices of coal, which is still used in much of German electricity generation, have established themselves above $60 a tonne for the API2 2017 contract since last week due to a softer dollar and disruptions in Australian ports…
Oil, which influences other energy prices, has been underpinned by a producers gathering in Algeria to discuss ways to support the market…
Spot electricity prices in Germany and France were lifted as forecasts for immediate higher wind levels did not materialise and were instead pushed towards the weekend. German solar, if higher than anticipated, was also at modest levels.
German wind availability is expected to stay at a low 1.5 gigawatts (GW) throughout the week and that of solar around 5 GW, Thomson Reuters data showed…http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL8N1C224Y

It was 104 °F here yesterday (40 °C), or a least that’s the highest I noticed. It’s somewhat unusual to be sure but not unprecedented by any means.

Something is interfering with my remote sensor today so I’m reduced to reading the less accurate thermometer. It can read higher because of greater influence from being under a lot more of the patio roof which gets quite hot with the sun hitting it all day. It reads 102 right now at 12:45 PM so another 104 looks possible.

September can be an oven around Southern California. But no records that I know of. And the news would be crowing about it if they could say there was a record.

for the record, given this thread is about dodgy surveys/polls, & the Presidential debate has come up.

on anti-Trump MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today, apparently Joe Scarborough is looking depressed about the debate & his co-host, Mika Brzezinski, Zbigniew’s daughter, is fretting that Donald Trump came away the winner politically.
Michael Moore says it’s all over, Trump has won.
something like 28 out of 30 snap polls had Trump the winner.
TrumpWon was trending on Twitter.
Google news page only had Trump listed as a News category, not Clinton.

yet…the only poll figures i heard on MSM tv/radio last nite re the Presidential Debate stated Clinton won 60/40, not even naming any poll. it would seem MSM is loosely characterising an absurd CNN poll.

within what seemed an “INSTANT” of the debate ending, CNN had:

26 Sept: Business Insider: Oliver Darcy: CNN INSTANT POLL: Hillary Clinton won in a landslide
Sixty-two percent of 521 respondents said the Democratic nominee won the political showdown…
CNN’s political director David Chalian, however, cautioned that the poll “definitely skews Democratic” because of the sample, which was approximately 10% more Democratic than a normal CNN poll would use.
Chalian said the margin of error was about 4.5%…http://www.businessinsider.com.au/poll-who-won-clinton-trump-debate-2016-9?r=US&IR=T

26 Sept: PDF: 23 pages: CNN/ORC Poll
METHODOLOGY
A total of 521 adult registered voters who watched the debate were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones. Among the entire sample, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 26% described themselves as Republicans, and 33% described themselves as independents or members of another party.http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/27/poll.pdf

ABC Australia: US presidential debate: Donald Trump vows to hit Hillary Clinton harder in next matchup
A CNN/ORC snap poll said 62 per cent of respondents felt Mrs Clinton won and 27 per cent believed Mr Trump was the winner.

Presidential election debate: Trump and Clinton clash
BBC News – ‎19 hours ago‎
A CNN/ORC poll taken after the debate found that 62% of voters who had watched the head-to-head thought that Mrs Clinton came out on top

Asian viewers give nod to Clinton after first presidential debate
Reuters-12 hours ago
A CNN poll of debate watchers released after the event found 62 percent felt Clinton won compared to 27 percent for Trump

How Clinton Beat Trump in Their First Debate, By the Numbers
Bloomberg-11 hours ago
Snap polls conducted after the debate similarly favored Clinton, including 62 percent of respondents in a CNN poll

UK Daily Mail: Majority of snap polls show Trump won debate by a landslide despite CNN’s overwhelming victory for Hillary in biggest official survey
CNN’s snap poll gave Clinton the win with 62 per cent to Trump’s 27
But most of the others reported Trump was the winner by a landslide…
CBS New York and the Washington Times, also saw Trump win the vote….
Clinton edged out Trump in the Star Tribune’s poll and one conducted by NBC News..

when numbers are this large, are these polls really as INCREDIBLE as the CNN one? only Drudge is a pro-Trump website. even Hollywood’s Variety Mag would seem to favour Trump! CNBC published their poll almost the moment they started it, claiming Clinton had won, but that isn’t how it turned out at all:

InvestmentWatchBlog: Politifact rates Trump “False” for claiming Obama-Clinton regulations on coal cost Michigan 50,000 jobs, but goes on to cite sources, including from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stating that Michigan lost over 50,000 jobs to coal regulations.

if Clinton won the debate in a landslide – 62-27, or even 60-40 – why does the MSM feel the need to keep up their attacks on Trump today? surely they should be concentrating on Clinton’s brilliant performance.

9 Oct 2015: Time Magazine: Daniel White: Here’s Why Gallup Won’t Poll the 2016 Election
On the negative side, the glut of polls often doesn’t add up to much, while problems with getting accurate results are starting to hurt the polling industry’s reputation…
The announcement this week that Gallup, one of America’s most storied pollsters, will no longer do horse-race polling on who’s ahead in the 2016 election cycle only underscored the huge changes in the industry.
Michael Dimock, president of the Pew Research Center, said it’s simply not worth it for places like Gallup to stay in the game.
“It feels like some kind of pivot, mostly because the way the rest of the polling market has developed,” he told TIME. “What you’ve seen is the arrival of a whole ton of polls that are covering that horse race side of it, just jamming us with new data day in and day out on the fortunes of the candidates.”
Both Pew and Gallup are instead marshaling their resources to find out what voters think about the issues…
Cliff Zukin, a professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers University: “They do not want to mislead the public and they don’t want to take a chance of not being able to do it well—it takes a lot more resources to do it well now.”
The former head of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Zukin wrote wrote a June op-ed in the New York Times, detailing two major problems with polling right now: people who only have a cellphone, and people who don’t respond to pollsters.
While smaller polling outfits get around these problems by using automated surveys or seeking out respondents online, methods that some critics say can distort results, Pew and Gallup stick to more expensive traditional methods, Zukin said…http://time.com/4067019/gallup-horse-race-polling/

btw CAGW-infested-invested Reuters is behind much of the spreading worldwide of the CNN fake post-debate poll, including at “theirABC”.

the ABC’s “US presidential debate: Donald Trump vows to hit Hillary Clinton harder in next matchup” in comment #39 is a Reuters piece, for example, & it has been carried worldwide.